Balaram on Dice Game - Page 10

What Yudhishtir did was wrong as per you or me. That does not make it wrong as per that era.

Staking kingdom, wife and brother was not a crime in that era, A husband an elder brother and a king had that right.

As per society of that era it was not a crime. As per law of that era it was not a crime.

And this has nothing to do with Draupadi or his brothers love for him or lack of it. Even if they hated him, nothing would change because

That is why Krishna never questions Yudhishtir for staking his kingdom, wife or brothers. He only tells him you should not have gambled. As per him also it was not a crime

That is why Drupad or Dhrishtadyumn never question Yudhishtir for staking Draupadi. As per them also it was not a crime

That is why Vyasa, Rishi Markandeya, Rishi Vyadhrahrava, Balrama, His sons and everyone else never question Yudhishtir for staking. As per them also it was not a crime.

Draupadi herself in the Sabha as well as later never questions Yudhishtir's right as a husband to stake her. Because she knows he has the right and it is not a crime.

She was a smart woman and hence questioned whether as a slave he had that right. That is how she fights the Sabha and saves herself and her husbands.

If Yudhishtir had not committed any crime in staking them how can he be punished for it.

Infact him staking his kingdom brothers and Draupadi was not even considered a mistake

Only his gambling with Shakuni was considered a mistake, again only a mistake not a crime.

Like I said before your or my perception doesnt matter. Social and legal framework of that era deemed Yudhishtir's action his right.

If there is no crime then there cannot be any punishment

Here yudhishthir saying to bheem how can u slay duryodhan when there is karn . Then bheem alarm by yudhishthir word and bheem further stop speaking anything

Yudhishthir want to say to bheem in order to slay duryodhan first karn, kripa drona should be slay

Yudhishthir was foresight and thoughtful

He has good strategy

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03036.htm

Yudhishthir is not perfect but he has good quality too . He use to serve bhramins which were considered as great virtue at that time and his advice are good

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Second dice game was after Vastraharan when Pandavas n Draupadi were freed and they had got back all they had lost in the game

Second game was necessary for the Kauravas side, because else they would have had attacked Hastinapur immidiately after returning home. At least this gave the Kauravas at least 13 more years to live

Saying that I am not ready to believe Yudhishtir was any less than Duryodhan+crony gang at least here. If Yudhishtir was in his ego so were Dury+crony and if Duty+crony were criminals so was Yudhishtir. However you all are right letting him go Scott free and punish others was the lesser evil, at least 80% of the culprits were punished

really i dint know there was a 2nd dice game after VH. Do the tv series show that or not😕

Why did yudi agree to put at stake his empire(indraprastha) and themselves(going to exile) again. he was bound to play the game again maybe but what was going to be put at stake he could have decided right

i do believe yudi was lesser evil than dury and gang. He would not have won someones wife and put her through abuse and VH. so therein lies the difference. but his ego and false sense of dharma was the evil inside him.

@Chillli in that case even forcing upon the Dasi (excluding r"*e) or taking a Dasi into inner chambers was also allowed in those days. That's why they had Dasis in the first place

If Yudhishtir was in right to stake brothers and wife then Duryodhan was in his rights to summon his Dasi into the hall(even forcefully it she is not complying) and make advances. In that case even Duryodhan wasn't into a criminal act here

At max you could say that Karna was wrong to have asked for the disrobe of a girl who was not his Dasi(she was Dury's Dasi). But then he knew that he has rights of his bff's Dasi and the owner had silent acceptance to it

Yes you are right. Why do you think Dury dared to send Dusshasan to drag Draupadi to Sabha.

They had that right to do that to a slave.

Everyone agreed to that, even Vidur and Vikarna.

I hope you now understand the beauty of Draupadi's argument. How in that moment when she was legally and rightfully banished into slavery and rape. She with her brains protected herself.

How she managed to save herself and paint Duryodhan Dusshasan Karna and Shakuni as criminals forever.

That iF Yudhishtir was already a slave. Did he have right to stake her. If she is not valid stake, how can she be a slave. She will not accept slavery

If she is not a slave then why is she who is a daughter in law of kuru being dragged into Sabha

She proclaimed herself not a slave. This was most brilliant law argument made by her that destroyed kouravas plan completely

In one moment they lost everything they had won.

They had without shedding a drop of blood taken away not just Yudhishtir's empire as well as his right to rule by making him and his brothers a slave. They wanted to ensure Draupadi to be a slave as well to ensure Panchalas do not rise in revolt.

But she the brilliant lawyer/politician in one sweep destroyed their entire game by making her stake invalid made them a criminal who insulted their sister in law by dragging her to the Sabha in her menses.

A crime which in that era all brahmins, Rishis and elders may accept as worthy of death punishment

That Yudhiatir and his brothers who were slave till now would get the right to kill them.

Vidur caught on to this and started speaking the same thing.

When Vikarna opened his mouth Karna and Duryodhan panicked that people are breaking ranks from their side, as their plan is destroyed.

That is when Karna in sheer frustration and anger tells Vikarna to shut up and tells Dusshasan to disrobe her, because disrobing her will shut her up. Once she is naked she will be too scared trying to cover herself up, than argue.

Or Pandavas will break ranks and Bhima will revolt against Yudhishtir and make him a criminal.

That Draupadi did not break down shows her strength and that Bhima still did not break rank rather swore to kill Kouravas that he was not stupid at all.

You may hate it as much as you want but that's how lawyers and politicians are important.

That Justice is blind. That law cannot see what is right or wrong.

Like Bhishma replies to Draupadi, The law is what the powerful interpret it to be.

Draupadi made the interpretation in the Sabha that Yudhishtir was not wrong Durydodhan was wrong that Yudhishtir was not a criminal in making her slave. But Durydodhan was wrong in dragging a daughter in law.

That she was not a slave yet she was a daughter in law.

She and everyone else kept repeating that till all the kouravas died to Justify the war and Yudhishtir's right to rule.

In the whole the core point that everyone ignored was Slave was also a human and had right to dignity.

At least God almighty believed that, even if not humans in that era and that is why Yudhishtir may have got all the kouravas killed. He could become emperor again, but he could not make his son emperor after him

You know Dhritrashtra went all the way to hell to get his son made King, understand Yudhishtir's punishment by Almighty that he did not leave Yudhishtir's son alive for him to get that happiness. See his son's marriage, see his grandkids, coronated his own son emperor after him.

Imagine his pain, he was a man who had the right to stake and lose his empire in a game of dice and because he exercised that right, God took away his right to give that empire to his son.

^^^

We have multiple times discussed how intelligent and politically sound lady Draupadi turned out to be. There is no doubt about it. I would however like to add that she didn't find much support. Excluding Vikarna and Arjun no one supported her claim( even Vidur was quite at this) Bheeshm nearly agreed to Duryodhan's claim against Draupadi's plea.

The reason for Draupadi's freedom was Duryodhan's stupidity as well who claimed that he would consider Draupadi free if some Pandav states that Yudhishtir was wrong in staking her. He probably felt none of the Pandavas would go against Yudhishtir, but unfortunately for him Arjun did.

Anyhow even after the freeing of Draupadi, none of the Kuru seniors criminalised the act of Duryodhan (or even Karna who technically didn't have the right to order the disrobe of someone else's Dasi) they condemned the act from moral point of view but not the act in itself. If Yudhishtir didn't have the right to stake Draupadi (as she claimed) after his enslavement, then Yudhishtir did definitely commit a sin and a crime.

Even the brothers as we have seen didn't consider this act of KaDuDuNi very wrong and were ready to make peace with them had they agreed for the return of the kingdom.

My point here is simply that in the present day scenario the acts both Yudhishtir and Duryodhan Karna+ cronies is criminal, while by the standards of those days the acts of neither is criminal (all the learner people there agreed). But we today want to judge Yudhishtir by the standards of those days making him just an egoist man, while judge DuryKarna+cronies by today's standards and criminalise their act.

This is my issue with the whole thing.

All five were equally wrong or equally Right there

P.S. even before the game of dice, Abhimanyu and not Prativindhya was declared the crown prince of Indraprasth, he didn't lose the right to pass on the empire to his son post this episode, so no God didn't take away anything from him in the punishment of this act.

I want to believe that what HearMeRoar said in another reply is true and Yudhishtir didn't reach heaven with humanly body and didn't have a happy ending

Originally posted by: NoraSM

If you don't think Yudhishtira was a criminal as well then the whole discussion is meaningless

It's not a matter of what *I* think, those were the laws.

It was also the law that men could do anything with slave girls.

That was why as @Chiliii said, Panchali's arguments were brilliant. She made it about Kauravas assaulting a sister-in-law which was definitely a crime. She also made it about loaded dice which was again a crime.

Also, Panchali does initially blame Yudhishtira. She first asks was he intoxicated? Who would stake their wives? Then she says go and ask that gambler who he lost first? The initial shock, probably.

Then, she starts arguing dharma and the letter of the law. That dharma she was talking about came before the vastraharan. So she definitely wasn't talking about assault by a family member then. She was talking about the human staking or staking of a wife. Either point says a lot about her philosophy.

Bheema also interjects with the point *they* don't do as such to slave girls.

So it is not that NO ONE talked about gambling and slave rights. It's just that in the dramatic imagery, Panchali's words get ignored. So do Bheema's.

After the war, she calls Yudhishtira a mad man publicly, who should be locked up. So she couldn't have been holding back for 13 years out of a fear of abandonment or widowhood. She held back until she got what she planned.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

It's not a matter of what *I* think, those were the laws.

It was also the law that men could do anything with slave girls.

That was why as @Chiliii said, Panchali's arguments were brilliant. She made it about Kauravas assaulting a sister-in-law which was definitely a crime. She also made it about loaded dice which was again a crime.

Also, Panchali does initially blame Yudhishtira. She first asks was he intoxicated? Who would stake their wives? Then she says go and ask that gambler who he lost first? The initial shock, probably.

Then, she starts arguing dharma and the letter of the law. That dharma she was talking about came before the vastraharan. So she definitely wasn't talking about assault by a family member then. She was talking about the human staking or staking of a wife. Either point says a lot about her philosophy.

Bheema also interjects with the point *they* don't do as such to slave girls.

So it is not that NO ONE talked about gambling and slave rights. It's just that in the dramatic imagery, Panchali's words get ignored. So do Bheema's.

After the war, she calls Yudhishtira a mad man publicly, who should be locked up. So she couldn't have been holding back for 13 years out of a fear of abandonment or widowhood. She held back until she got what she planned.

"Suyodhana was the CRIMINAL of dice hall. Yudhishtira was an egotistical idiot. Neither was a prize, but Suyodhana was much worse than Yudhishtira who was definitely not a criminal."

How was Duryodhana a criminal then? If what they did wasn't a crime back then?

How did we go from both were criminal to Duryodhana was criminal to both weren't criminal

Originally posted by: NoraSM

"Suyodhana was the CRIMINAL of dice hall. Yudhishtira was an egotistical idiot. Neither was a prize, but Suyodhana was much worse than Yudhishtira who was definitely not a criminal."

How was Duryodhana a criminal then? If what they did wasn't a crime back then?

How did we go from both were criminal to Duryodhana was criminal to both weren't criminal

I did not say both weren't criminal.

I said assault on a dasi wasn't criminal and neither was human staking in those days.

Assault on a sister-in-law, however, was criminal in any era. Suyodhana knew it, and he condoned it. Stupidity cannot be equated to criminality.

Yudhishtira didn't deserve his wife OR his empire. But that doesn't make him criminal.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I did not say both weren't criminal.

I said assault on a dasi wasn't criminal and neither was human staking in those days.

Assault on a sister-in-law, however, was criminal in any era. Suyodhana knew it, and he condoned it. Stupidity cannot be equated to criminality.

Yudhishtira didn't deserve his wife OR his empire. But that doesn't make him criminal.

If Draupadi was not a Dasi and a sister in law (as claimed by her), then that means the argument of Draupadi that being a slave Yudhishtir couldn't stake Draupadi was correct.

In such a scenario staking the freedom of Draupadi becomes a crime of Yudhishtir. How could he stake something on which he had no rights. Not even something small the independence of a free human despite being a slave

If Yudhishtir had the right to stake Draupadi then and the staking was just his mistake not his crime then Draupadi was a Dasi (not sister in law), hence Duryodhan too wasn't doing any crime.

That's why I said either both did crimes of neither did. Saying the act of one was criminal and that of other was stupidity holds no value